Money for buses, online schools back in House bill

Amendment to restore proposed cuts fraught with intrigue over governor's role

Deputy Kansas Education Commissioner Dale Dennis watches the House Appropriations Committee's debate over a plan to increase aid to poor school districts during Thursday's late-night session at the Statehouse. Dennis has been the state's leading expert for decades on the state's formulas for distributing its school aid.

Related Stories

A House committee renewed its school finance talks Thursday night with a bill that backtracked on a number of K-12 funding shifts.

The House Appropriations Committee passed a school finance bill that included shifting funds from online "virtual schools" and busing by one vote Tuesday night, but the bill was sent back to committee.

Thursday the panel voted to amend the bill to restore cuts to those areas. It also voted to remove a provision that would have dipped into a coming increase in the state's contributions to the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System and another that sought to grab $3.5 million from the sale of the Rainbow Mental Health Facility.

The new plan would shift some money within the K-12 funding formula and sweep some from state fire marshal and state highway patrol fee funds to make up for the loss of the Rainbow sale money. But other new expenses would have to come out of the state's general fund, with early estimates coming in at $51 million per year.

The changes peeved some conservative members of the panel, including Rep. Virgil Peck, who said he and others had "worked tirelessly to reduce the size, scope and spending of government,” only to see their work undone by the expensive amendment.

“So we’re spending a significant amount of taxpayer dollars in this balloon (amendment) it appears to me," Peck said. "The numbers we have on the sheet, it looks like we’re going to spend almost $130 million tonight in this committee.”

Rep. Gene Suellentrop, chairing the committee in place of Rep. Marc Rhoades, who resigned the position this week, offered little rebuttal.

“The fiscal adjustments have been made and I think they’re pretty self-explanatory,” said Suellentrop, R-Wichita.

“I just thought it would be useful for someone to say out loud how much money this committee has proposed to spend,” Peck said.

Rep. Marvin Kleeb, R-Overland Park, attempted to answer Peck by assuring him that about $74 million of the money would go to property tax relief. He also said the Legislature was facing hard choices, with the Kansas Supreme Court having ruled that the state had failed in its constitutional duty to fund schools equitably.

“A good portion of all of this is in reaction to the Supreme Court ruling that we equalize school funding," said Kleeb, the committee's vice chairman. "I don’t think this is being taken lightly by anybody.”

Kleeb said the court ruling had to be addressed quickly and shifting too many funds within schools budgets to do so could be troublesome.

"We need to basically hold our schools harmless," Kleeb said. "We do not have enough time for them to adjust their budgets."

Tom Krebs, government relations specialist for the Kansas Association of School Boards, said his organization needed to study the changes further, but at first blush the new bill appears better from its perspective.

"Clearly the restoration of transportation funds, virtual funds and the high-desntiy weighting funds are all going to help schools particularly given the budget process that is fully underway now," Krebs said. "The uncertainty was detreimental to districts and this plan would help a great deal."

Peck later said he thought the bill had been sent back to committee "simply for the KPERS fix."

The discussion over the amendments was also fraught with intrigue about whether they were the preference of Gov. Sam Brownback, because committee members were handed explanatory forms originally addressed to Jon Hummel, the governor's interim budget director.

"Am I voting on the governor's plan or the House plan?" asked Rep. Kasha Kelley, R-Arkansas City.

"We are voting on Senate Bill 218 and a proposed amendment," Suellentrop said.

"Which is based on the governor's plan," Kelley said.

Kleeb said the amendments proposed Thursday were "not specifically the governor's plan," adding that the research department sent outlines of many plans to Hummel and he and Suellentrop gathered their ideas from several sources, including Hummel.

But questions about how much had already been negotiated with Brownback's office remained, with Peck voicing frustration at one point.

"Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Chairman, because I wasn’t in the backroom meetings,” Peck said.

The House also added an amendment to give about $170,000 in operating grants to Washburn University in each of the next two years.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of
civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site.
Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate
language, but readers might find some comments offensive or
inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the
"Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Unless I am not mistaken, we pay for buildings and teachers to educate and prepare students for the real world. Use them. This move to online classes it's a sham by the short sighted administrators who think they can make an easy buck at the cost of the student.

Those on line students (like many home schooled) don't learn the lesson of interacting face to face with other people, they don't learn sharing, they don't learn waiting their turn. It's good for kids to "go" to school, sit quietly in a classroom and respect the teacher and others around them. I know, some get away from that last one but it should be stressed again.

is an integral part of modern education, being singularly well suited to students who are unable to attend brick and mortar classes due to prolonged recovery from serious illness or injury - in which case it is much less expensive than tutors. Interaction with their classes (both academically and socially) can even be accommodated through web cam connections. The digital interpersonal interactions are inferior to face to face interactions but superior to leaving the student behind.

On-line schooling should be available for such situations, but should NOT be available as an free elective alternative for parents who 'just don't like' their local schools.